The Assembly met at 10.30 am (The Initial Presiding Officer (The Lord Alderdice of Knock) in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Presiding Officer’s Business

Lord Alderdice: By virtue of paragraph1 of the schedule to the NorthernIreland (Elections) Act 1998, it falls to the Secretary of State to determine where meetings of the Assembly shall be held and when. I have received a letter to the Assembly from the Secretary of State directing that the Assembly shall meet at ParliamentBuildings, Stormont at 10.30am on Monday 1March until 6.00pm on Tuesday 9March 1999.
The Secretary of State has also indicated that she will consider a further direction as respects this period, in particular in the light of any indications she may receive as to the wishes of the Assembly after it has begun to meet.
At the last sitting, as recorded on page120 of Volume2 of Hansard, MrDodds raised a question as to whether remarks about the Orange Order and the RUC made by MrMitchelMcLaughlin at the sitting on 16February1999, recorded on page105 of Volume2 of Hansard, were unparliamentary. At the time I said that, however objectionable MrDodds or others might have found the remarks, I did not believe them to be unparliamentary or a breach of privilege. Having examined the matter further, I am still of that view.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. The business of today’s sitting was originally trailed as being the presentation of the report from the Standing Orders Committee. I understand that the Committee is within sight of the finishing line and that its report will come later. However, I understand that the Committee’s work was further disrupted at its last meeting by the behaviour of SinnFéin/IRA members who questioned the integrity of the SDLP joint Chairman. Subsequently the meeting had to be adjourned.
Are you satisfied that the Chairmen of the House’s Committees have sufficient powers to deal with this kind of disruptive behaviour? Should those who cause such disruption not be ejected from the meeting, rather than the meeting itself being stopped?

Lord Alderdice: I understand that the meeting to which you refer took place on Friday afternoon. I have not received any report of it save what you have said, MrRobinson, although this morning I have been engaged in making preparations for today’s sitting. Obviously, if any such matter were to be brought to my attention by the joint Chairmen of the Standing Orders Committee I would be content to look into it. That is a matter for them.
If there are any other matters in regard to that which I should deal with, I will do my best to do so. However, it seems to me that this is essentially a Standing Orders matter, and if the Standing Orders Committee is unable to address the matter of Standing Orders for Committees, things are in poor shape.
I look forward to receiving a report of what happened at the meeting.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, as you are aware, last week I lodged with your office a complaint about the presence in this Building of a large number of delegates from the Irish Republic. I believe that they were senior civil servants. This matter was of concern to many Assembly Members.
Apparently the delegates were allocated a number of rooms and were free to roam around. They appeared from every doorway — it was almost an infestation of Dublin civil servants. I would like you to tell us under what authority —

Dr Sean Farren: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.

Lord Alderdice: It is not permissible to intervene with a point of order during a point of order, but you may make your point after this.

Mr Cedric Wilson: This matter was of concern not only to my party but also to many others who wondered on what basis these people had gained access to the building and under whose authority the rooms had been allocated. I believe that protocol dictates that proposals for official visits from other bodies should, at the very least, be brought before the Shadow Commission or the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer. I do not think that any party knew that these people were going to be here. The Assembly should be notified of any visits by people from a foreign state. Members should also be given information on the proper procedures to be followed in the event of any future visits of this nature.

Lord Alderdice: There are three matters relating to this issue. The first is a political one, and it is not for me to comment on, save to say that I think it would be best if all our comments, political or otherwise, were made in the most courteous way.
The second matter concerns the arrangements for the allocation of rooms. I remind Members that we are not legally in possession of this Building. Until the appointed day the Building will remain the property of HerMajesty’s Government. The Secretary of State or Ministers acting on her behalf occasionally request the use of offices or other facilities here. In fact, these are rather more than requests, as ownership still rests with the Government. Offices must be made available in response to requests from the Secretary of State or her Ministers. The Building is the property of the Government, and such requests do not come through the process that applies to other applications. This request was made in the way that I have described.
The third issue is to do with security and whether people are adhering to the regulations that have been established. Following the Member’s complaint, I asked for a report from the Keeper of the House. Having received a written report, I met with that official. I have asked for further enquiries to be made, and I hope to have meetings later today to address the matters so that everyone may be clear on how the security of all those who come into the Building can best be ensured.

Dr Sean Farren: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, thank you for your clarification about the authority under which the civil servants from Dublin were present in these premises over the last week. I wish to express a very strong objection to language used by MrCedricWilson of a party whose name escapes me for the moment. To describe servants of the Southern state as infesting this Building is very objectionable, and I wish my objection to be recorded.

Lord Alderdice: I understand your objection. I think I indicated earlier that such points are essentially political matters rather than matters of order. That does not mean that they cannot be made, of course.

Assembly Members: Code of Conduct

Motion made:
This Assembly agrees the resolution set out in AnnexA to Paper No NIA1 "The Code of Conduct", together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members. — [Mr Haughey and Mr Cobain]
Which resolution is as follows:
"a. Approval is given to:
(i) The Code of Conduct contained in Assembly Paper NIA1;
(ii) the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members contained in Assembly Paper NIA1; and
(iii) The Committee on Standards and Privileges to make such minor amendments to the Guide to the Rules as appear to it to be justified by experience or necessarily reflect decisions of the Assembly; and to report such amended versions of the Guide to the Assembly.
Registration and Declaration of Members’ Interests
b. Every Member of the Assembly shall furnish to the Clerk of Standards such particulars of his or her registrable interests as shall be required, and shall notify to the Clerk of Standards any alterations which may occur therein, and the Clerk of Standards shall cause these particulars to be entered in a Register of Members’ Interests which shall be available for inspection by the public.
c. In any debate or proceedings of the Assembly or its Committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members, Ministers or servants of the Crown, he or she shall disclose any relevant interest or benefit, of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he or she may have had, may have or may be expecting to have. For these purposes:
(i) any interest disclosed in a copy of the Register of Members’ Interests shall be regarded as sufficient disclosure for the purpose of taking part in any division in the Assembly or in any of its Committees;
(ii) the term "proceeding" shall be deemed not to include the asking of a supplementary question.
d. It is the personal responsibility of each Member to have regard to his or her public position and the good name of the NorthernIreland Assembly in any work he or she undertakes or any interests he or she acquires. The scope of the requirement to register remunerated trades, professions or vocations includes any remunerated activity in the fields of public relations and political and Assembly advice and consultancy; in particular, in regard to the registration and declaring of clients, the services which require such registration and, where appropriate, declaration include, as well as any action connected with any proceedings in the Assembly or its Committees, the sponsoring of functions in Parliament Buildings, making representations to Ministers, civil servants and other Members, accompanying delegations to Ministers and the like.
e. No difficulty should arise in any proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees in which the Member has an opportunity to speak. Such proceedings, in addition to debates in the Assembly, include debates in Committees, the presentation of a public petition, and meetings of Committees at which evidence is heard. On all such occasions the Member will declare his or her interest at the beginning of his or her remarks. It will be a matter for the Member’s judgement, if the interest is already recorded in the Register, whether he or she simply draws attention to this or makes a rather fuller disclosure. Declarations of interest made in Committees shall be recorded in their Minutes of Proceedings.
f. Any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of the NorthernIreland Assembly shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Code of Conduct for Members; and a full copy of any such agreement, including the fees or benefits payable in bands of up to £1,000, £1,000-£5,000, £5,000-£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000, shall be deposited with the Clerk of Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members’ interests and made available for inspection by the public.
g. Any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of the NorthernIreland Assembly which confirms to the Code of Conduct for Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement in written form; and within three months of the date of this resolution a full copy of any such agreement, including the fees or benefits payable in bands of up to £1,000, £1,000-£5,000, £5,000-£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000, shall be deposited with the Clerk of Standards and registered in the Register of Members’ Interests and made available for inspection by the public.
Advocacy
h. It is inconsistent with the dignity of the Assembly, with the duty of a Member to his or her constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of the Assembly to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member’s complete independence and freedom of action in the NorthernIreland Assembly or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in the NorthernIreland Assembly; the duty of a Member being to his or her constituents and to NorthernIreland as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof and that, in particular, no Member of the Assembly shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received, is receiving, or expects to receive:
(i) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual; or
(ii) urge any other Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, including Ministers, to do so,
by means of any speech, question, motion, introduction of a Bill or amendment to a motion or Bill.
i. A Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest."

Mr Denis Haughey: Unfortunately I have to begin with an apology. My voice is not in its usual working order because of a bad dose of the cold. I hope that Members will be able to make out what I am saying.
Let me at the outset refer to the comments of MrRobinson about the last meeting of the Committee on Standing Orders. I am very moved indeed by the Member’s concern for my safety and welfare. The Committee has worked very well for the last nine months. I cannot recall a single cross word or a single vote at any other meeting.
The Committee has almost completed its work — owing to the energies of MrCobain and myself, with a remarkable degree of consensus, I think. I regret the minor squall which shivered our timbers on Friday afternoon, but I fancy that I steered the ship safely into port without any glass being broken. [Interruption]
I did not get that.

Lord Alderdice: Order.

Mr Denis Haughey: I will find out later what the remark was.
As Members are well aware, the Committee is working very energetically to compile a set of workable Standing Orders. It is with some regret that it is not able to bring a full report to the Assembly today. However, all good things come to those who wait.
Having created an air of anticipation, I have a duty to put before the Assembly a matter which I think cannot wait until the Committee has completed its task. The Assembly has been in operation for approximately nine months, albeit in shadow form. I suppose one could say that it is time for us to make a delivery of some kind. Last week we heard from a quintet of quantity surveyors, when the Assembly was asked to adopt the Commission’s report. This week, it is the medics.
Last Monday some Members may have initially — I emphasise the word "initially" — been surprised at the projected increase in the operating costs of the "New Assembly plc". The reasons for this were soon made clear, but the media saw it as a controversial issue. I trust that today the media will note that the Assembly is, I hope, going to christen a bouncing baby Prudence. This is about self-regulation, about setting up an infant system of registration and the monitoring of Members’ interests.
The Committee on Standing Orders has considered this issue and has come up against some problems. There are a number of imponderables. Will there, as elsewhere, be an Assembly Commissioner to look after standards? We do not yet know. If there is no Commissioner, what alternative arrangements will be made? We do not know that either. If there is to be a Commissioner, how will he be appointed? What exactly will he do? We do not know the answers to any of these questions. The enquiries that have been made through the Office of the Initial Presiding Officer have not yet yielded any clear information.
We therefore consider it unwise to continue to wait for such answers, and, through this motion, we are proposing a temporary arrangement based on minor adaptations to the Code and Guide to Members’ Interests at Westminster — a document which will be familiar to those who are also Members of that House.
The proposed arrangement is an interim one which will provide the quickest means of establishing a form of regulation pending the setting up of more permanent and more carefully considered arrangements.
We propose — as DrPaisley suggested last week, albeit for other reasons — that a Committee on Standards and Privileges be set up. This Committee would be a Standing Committee of the House, standing not in the Westminster sense, but in the true sense of its being a permanent Committee of the House. The issue of Members’ interests is much too serious and wide-ranging an issue to rest with the Committee on Standing Orders.
We recommend that the policy functions associated with this be passed to the new Committee, and we seek the Assembly’s approval, in principle, for its establishment. Our detailed proposals on Committees generally are contained in the draft Standing Orders, but because they are far-reaching, we ask Members to be patient and await their exact delineation, probably next week. If the Assembly chooses to approve this interim arrangement, it is our view that the matter of Members’ interests, including the interim issues, should be taken forward by the proposed new Committee.
The purpose of action on Members’ interests is to assist Members in the discharge of their obligations to the Assembly, to their constituents and to the general public. Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act in accordance with the trust placed in them. Holders of public office should promote and support, by their leadership and example, the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness and honesty. In essence, this translates to the following:
Members should base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two in favour of the latter. We should at all times conduct ourselves in a manner which maintains and strengthens the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the Assembly and never undertake any action which would bring the Assembly or its Members into disrepute.
The acceptance by any Member of a bribe to influence his or her conduct, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, motion or other matter submitted or intended to be submitted to the Assembly or to any Committee, is unlawful and entirely unacceptable.
It is proposed, as part of this package, that a Register of Members’ interests be established. This would be under the control of a Clerk of Standards who would also act as Clerk to the proposed new Committee that we wish to see established as soon as practicable. Members can see from the papers the range and extent of the proposed register.
I will not spend time repeating or explaining what is before the House. The Guide itself is sufficient. We should fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the Assembly in respect of the registration of interests in the register. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order. May I ask Members who wish to converse to do so outside the Chamber. I know that from time to time it is quite reasonable for a word to be passed, but there are a number of Members who are having lengthy conversations, and this is unhelpful to the Member who is speaking and to those Members who wish to listen.

Mr Denis Haughey: Thank you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.
We should fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the Assembly in respect of the registration of interests in the register and should always draw attention to any relevant interest in any proceedings of the Assembly or its Committees or in any communications with Ministers, Departments or executive agencies. In any activity with or on behalf of an organisation with which a Member has a financial arrangement, including activities which may not be a matter of public record, such as informal meetings and functions, he or she must always bear in mind the need to be open, and honest with Ministers, Members and officials.
No Member should act as a paid advocate in any proceedings of the Assembly. No improper use should be made of any payment or allowance made to Members for public purposes, and the rules which apply to such payments must be strictly observed. Members must bear in mind that the information which they receive in confidence in the course of their Assembly duties should be used only in connection with those duties and that such information must never be used for the purpose of personal or financial gain.
We need to start now as we mean to go on. Quite apart from the basic requirements of Section43 of the Act, which will be addressed when we present the Standing Order on this matter, we must be seen to be completely open and honest in our dealings, and that should be characterised today by a readiness on the part of the Assembly — a readiness that we saw last week when it embraced the Commission’s report — to accept the motion and agree what is proposed in AnnexA to Paper No NIA1.
I ask Members to proceed on this matter without further ado.

Lord Alderdice: I call MrNigelDodds.

Mr Denis Haughey: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I think that the proper procedure is for my co-Chairman to jointly move.

Lord Alderdice: May I confirm, MrCobain, that you are jointly moving?

Mr Fred Cobain: indicated assent.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I understand that MrPRobinson referred to SinnFéin’s conduct at the last meeting of the Standing Orders Committee. First, MrRobinson was not there. Secondly, if MrRobinson or his colleagues were to be removed from meetings for unruly conduct, they would not be in attendance at many meetings. The meeting was adjourned by the Chairman, as is the Chairman’s right.

Lord Alderdice: I think that we have dealt with that matter, but the joint Chairmen may wish to address it. The matter has been proposed.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point or order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. Has there been any occasion on which you have thought it necessary to refer to me in relation to my conduct in the Assembly or in its Committees?

Lord Alderdice: I am not aware of any occasion when I have made such a reference to MrRobinson.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee, but I was not in attendance at Friday’s meeting during what the Chairman has called "this minor squall". I have attended almost all meetings of the Standing Orders Committee, but I was called away five minutes before Friday’s squall arose. Members can imagine my surprise when I returned and found that, like the MarieCeleste, the place had been abandoned. I hope that that had nothing to do with my absence. It was unfortunate because, as the Chairman said, the Committee has operated reasonably well. It still has an enormous amount of work to get through, but I hope that we will be able to reach —

Lord Alderdice: Perhaps there is a little confusion. I called you to speak to the motion. The matter that was raised earlier and on which there was an intervention and a point of order has been properly aired and dealt with. I ask you to continue with your speech on the motion.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am well aware of the point that is being addressed, and I am simply responding to points that were raised by the Chairman. They were not strictly relevant, but I note that you did not call him to order. I thought that as you had not ruled on that matter, I was perfectly within my rights in referring to it.
Given that I do not anticipate an abundance of Members who wish to speak today on this issue, I am a little surprised at how assiduous you are in calling me to order on this point.
Coming back to the main point, I do hope that the Committee on Standing Orders will be able to finish its work in the constructive way in which it has operated throughout. It is unfortunate that that incident occurred on Friday.
I want to deal with a couple of points that the Chairman went into in some detail. It is a sign of the times that we are bringing this type of motion to the Assembly. Fifteen or 20 years ago this would not have been one of the first priorities of any elected body, but it is right and proper that one of the first duties of the Assembly should be to implement this report and set up a Committee on Standards and Privileges. That is no less than all Members should now expect, and, indeed, members of the public and the press expect it. We should be open and transparent in our work; people should know exactly what our interests are; and this motion should therefore command the unanimous support of all Members.
The recommendation to set up a Committee on Standards and Privileges is very welcome. Such Committees have operated well in the House of Commons and elsewhere.
I want to draw attention to one point: this report does not specifically recommend or deal with an Assembly Commissioner on Standards and Privileges. That will be dealt with by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, but my view, and the view of my party, is that such a person should be an appointed official of the House whose duties would be to monitor how the rules were being applied, to draw to the attention of the Committee and the House any breaches or difficulties that were foreseen or were occurring with the operation of the various rules and to investigate complaints made by Members or by members of the public.
It is important that these issues do not become party political and that we do not have members of Committees from any one particular party carrying out investigations, whether that be the Chairmen or the members of those Committees. Investigations should be carried out by someone who is answerable to an entire Committee and is an official of the House.
The idea of having an Assembly Commissioner on Standards and Privileges who was an official to look after this area, to monitor, to draw attention to and to investigate is a good one and something that the Committee, when it is set up, will arrange quickly, and I anticipate that this Committee will be set up very soon.
When we debated this in the Standing Orders Committee there was some initial thought that we should just have a general, wide-ranging motion, leaving it to Members to register interests that might be perceived as interests that they should register. However, several members of the Standing Orders Committee believe that we need to be more specific, and more certain, because there is nothing worse in this area than uncertainty and vagueness. Members need to know where they stand, and what interests need to be registered. Likewise, the public should know exactly what should be registered and declared as an interest.
It was also made clear that the Committee, when it is set up, should have the power, specifically, and the Chairman drew attention to this, to tweak the rules and change them if necessary as we proceed so that they are what the Assembly requires and what the people of NorthernIreland deserve and require.
These rules are not set in concrete. They are very full and follow very closely what is in operation in the UnitedKingdom and what is going to be in place for the National Assembly of Wales. They can be changed as we go along, and any changes will be brought to the House, to enable them to reflect the particular needs of this Assembly and the people of NorthernIreland.
I warmly welcome this report and hope that it will have full support from all sections of the House.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Although I am not a regular member of the Standing Orders Committee, I frequently attend its meetings as a substitute for my party. I should like to place on record my appreciation of the Committee’s hard work and, in particular, the work of the joint Chairmen, both of whom have put in a great deal of effort. It would not be beyond the bounds of acceptable comment to mention DenisHaughey in that regard. His work as a Chairman has been exemplary and visionary, and has helped to guide the Committee through many rough patches. It is very disturbing when his character is impugned in a meeting, as happened on Friday, and I strongly object to that.
It is important to begin at the beginning when debating the motion. As MrDodds said, there was a time when this topic would not have come up for discussion. It is important to recall the need to introduce a method of self-regulation for Members of an elected Assembly. The origin lies in the spate of allegations in Britain in the early 1990s which, when taken together, persuaded many people that standards in public life were falling and that an atmosphere of sleaze had taken hold.
The allegations included cash for questions; the employment of ex-Ministers and former officials by firms that they had privatised; links between political donations and appointments and honours; and fraud and corruption in local government and in quangos. All of that will be familiar to Members. Public concern on all those matters led the Prime Minister of the day to set up the Nolan Committee in 1994 to inquire into standards in public life. Although Neill has replaced Nolan, the Committee is expected to continue indefinitely. Perhaps that is good. I hope that our Committee, when it is formed, will continue, as MrDodds said, tweaking and improving the rules as it goes along.
Most of Nolan’s findings were adopted or added to by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Those same standards are reflected in the important report that is before the House. Historically, many of the people that we represent have a jaundiced view of democracy. Some have had little trust in it and have adopted other means to get their views across.
It is incumbent on the Assembly to ensure that the unique form of democracy that we are attempting to build is not only above reproach but is seen to be above reproach. That is essential not just on moral grounds, which of course it should be, but also because it is necessary for us to demonstrate that Members and the systems that we are creating can be trusted. That is why the report is so significant.
The requirements for Members to register their interests are open, clear, comprehensive and straightforward. They cover all the main areas that might be considered vulnerable to abuse. They also clearly set down the limits and procedures both for Members and for the public. In that regard the procedure for the declaration of Members’ interests is so laid out as to cover almost every possible situation, whether in Assembly debates, written notices, Adjournment or emergency debates, or anything else.
The advocacy rule is also of great importance, and it deals well with both the initiation of proceedings and participation in a debate in which the Member has a financial interest. In particular, the section deals well with a difference of opinion that arose between Nolan and the Select Committee on the types of bodies with which Members should be allowed to have a paid relationship. Members will recall that the Committee concentrated on actions that might be open to abuse or suspicion.
They therefore distinguished between paid advice, which was permitted, and paid advocacy, which was prohibited. Nolan had rejected this as unenforceable, and there is little doubt that he was right. Financial relationships of this kind have the potential to corrupt by influencing decisions. I welcome the fact that the report’s proposals cover all financial interests. There are some issues on which I should like some clarity because I was not present when some of them were discussed.
Category 2 on page 5 lists exceptions from some representative roles on various bodies. Now that district councillors are being salaried, should not district council payments be included in that section along with the others? If there is a reason for not doing that, it should be made clear. Is everyone satisfied that the Committee on Standards and Privileges can provide the Assembly with rules for the necessary level of control? Will the role of the Clerk of Standards, which is outlined in paragraph 66, be the same or similar to that of the Independent Commissioner at Westminster?
I agree with the line in paragraph h of AnnexA which states that a Member’s duty is
"to his or her constituents and to NorthernIreland as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof ".
The duty that that places on a Member in terms of responsibility is stated in paragraph63. Should a complaint be made, is it sufficient merely to include the provision in paragraph66 which will
"expect the complainant to assemble supporting evidence"?
That will sometimes be difficult for a Member, never mind members of the public. One must have the discretion to dismiss frivolous or malicious complaints, but perhaps there is a need to allow some greater opportunity to seek out information. In Westminster, there have been many examples of personal papers, bank and credit card statements being examined by the Commissioner.
Will the penalties to be imposed on an errant Member be the same as in Westminster where public censure, apology, suspension and eventual expulsion are imposed? If so, how will they be operated here? Perhaps the Committee could explore that in the future. It could also explore a Member’s right to appeal, and what procedure might be put in place to allow that. We should offer Members that opportunity.
On personal conduct and integrity, the report states
"Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties."
That is a worthy requirement. Over the weekend, there has been much concern in my area about the fact that a convicted murderer, and self-confessed and brutal murderer to boot, has continued his membership of the OrangeOrder. That this should be allowed to continue is a matter of great concern, but the question that came to my mind was what influence such an organisation might have on a body such as this if that kind of standard were allowed to continue.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Chathaoirligh, it is certainly very rich of the Ulster Resistance and the DUP to talk about disruption in this place or at any meetings.
Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I would like some clarification from you on Committees, on the Register of Members’ interests and on the fact that people are coming out of Committees and talking about their business outside before matters are brought to the House. Here we have Members who were not at the Standing Orders Committee yet seem to be aware of what happened there, or rather are not aware of what actually happened — that would be my line. I cannot understand how the issue of disruption has arisen. I was at the meeting, and I did not see any real disruption. If every time questions were asked or there was cross-questioning or discussion, the Initial Presiding Officer vacated the Chair, the Chair would be empty quite often. We need to look further at this issue.
The issue in question is the recognition of the Irish language. Members should be allowed to speak it freely in the Chamber. That is SinnFéin’s position, and people have a right to debate that and other matters in Committees. The purpose of Committees is to enable there to be discussion on issues before they come to the Chamber. I saw no problems at all with the discussion that took place on Friday.
On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. The week before last the Committee meeting was adjourned at 3.45pm, whereas last week it was 5.00pm before it was adjourned. So other interests may have been involved apart from what was going on in the meeting itself.

Ms Brid Rodgers: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.

Lord Alderdice: I understand that the Member, during his speech, said that he wished to raise a point of order. That is rather unusual. It would be difficult for me to take a point of order from you now. However, since the Member was in the throes of his speech, I am not sure that it was necessary for him to call the matter a point of order and I will therefore permit you to make your point of order, MsRodgers.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an té atá ag labhairt. An nglacann sé leis nár cuireadh cosc ariamh ar dhuine ar bith labhairt as Gaedhilg sa Chomhthionól seo?

Mr Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Should we not hear an interpretation of what MsRodgers has said? It is rather ignorant to speak in a foreign tongue.

Lord Alderdice: I am grateful to you for bringing that to my attention. I ask MsRodgers to translate.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Mr Presiding Officer, MrMolloy will have undoubtedly understood what I said, and I trust that you yourself have received the translation. I would expect that to be sufficient.

Several Members: On a point of order.

Lord Alderdice: May I rule before taking any points of order?
I have from a very early stage made it clear that a translation is a courtesy to other Members; it is not to clarify the position for me. I have taken the precaution of making arrangements for myself so that I can know if a translation that is proffered is a reasonably accurate translation of what was said. However, I have always taken the view — and this is one that I have expressed to the Assembly and which Members have never challenged — that when Members speak in another language they should give a translation out of courtesy to the other Members.
I cannot say whether MrMolloy understood or not, but it is absolutely clear that many other Members did not. I therefore ask MsRodgers to translate.

Mr Francie Molloy: Mr Presiding Officer, first of all — [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: I ask MsRodgers to translate and then MrMolloy can continue.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, can I take it then that I will also get my reply in the same language? What I asked on a point of order was if anyone had ever been prevented from speaking in the Irish language in this Chamber.

Lord Alderdice: I trust that that is not the case and I have taken precautions to ensure that it is not the case.

Mr Francie Molloy: I thank MsRodgers for her intervention and I am pleased to hear that this has been her first time to speak in her native tongue in this Chamber. This is an important matter to discuss. I am not an Irish language speaker and I openly admit and regret that. That does not mean that I do not recognise the right of people to speak it. I want to see it put quite clearly on the record and on Standing Orders that people do have the right to speak the Irish language — not a language of their choice but the Irish language.

Lord Alderdice: I have been trying for some time to define for myself quite how the right to speak the Irish language comes into registrable interests. It is not entirely impossible that it would, but it is taking increasing ingenuity to find out how it might. I should be grateful if Members would return to the motion on the registration of Members’ interest and the Code of Conduct.

Mr Francie Molloy: As you said at the last meeting of the Assembly, MrInitial Presiding Officer, one question begs an answer. Nearly every Member who has spoken has referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Friday. It is only right that I, as a member of the Standing Orders Committee, also refer to it. However, I do welcome the interventions, which have been worthwhile. It is not simply a matter of choice — it is a matter of putting on record in the Standing Orders. That is what we are supposed to be debating.
It is important to support this report. It is a temporary measure. Until Standing Orders and the Committee for Standards and Privileges start to deal with the issue of members’ interests and have in place a register of those interests, it is important that we set in place some categorisation of standards.
It is important that the financial interests of Members are recorded as well as their non-pecuniary interests, but it is more important that we have recognition in the register of Members’ interests in secret organisations. I refer, in particular, to the Loyal Orders, the Freemasons and other related organisations. This would ensure that we know where Members are coming from, and that, when Members speak on a particular issue, we know which organisation they support.
I support the motion.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the report and want to express my thanks to the Members of the different political parties who have worked so hard to produce it.
I note that the register will include not only pecuniary interests but also non-pecuniary interests. That is fundamental. It is very important because much of the past mistrust has been based on the belief that power was often exercised outside the democratic institutions in a way that served no one well in the long term.
I am delighted that this proposal comes before the Assembly on the same day that new legislation aimed at preventing religious discrimination in the provision of a wide range of goods and services also becomes law. I am convinced that there is a genuine desire on the part of the Government to chart a new beginning, free from the mistrust of the past.
Given the opportunity and the goodwill of all parties, I am convinced that the fears of the past can be laid to rest. Everyone, irrespective of class or creed, can, with confidence, take their rightful place in society, apply for jobs, seek goods or services and know that discrimination will play no part in the decision-making process.
To make this work, it is essential Members complete the register, declaring all outside interests, so that no allegations can be made that Members used their position in public life to influence decisions outside the House.
People have a right to belong to any organisation provided that it is not illegal and that includes semi-secret or oath-taking societies. However, I am convinced that they should openly declare their membership of these organisations so that there can be no confusion in the minds of the public when it comes to making decisions on behalf of the electorate.
In Northern Ireland there has been a tendency to believe that real power has often been in the hands of people who, while operating quite legally, are very restrictive in who belongs to their organisations. It would be unfortunate if people continued to believe that the power to influence decisions remained anywhere but in this House.
The public must begin to place their confidence in the ability of the Assembly to make decisions on their behalf, which are influenced by nothing but the common good of everyone, irrespective of who they are or where they come from.
I am convinced that there is an enormous amount of goodwill for this new Assembly and that the majority of the people in the whole community share that goodwill.
I am further convinced that as we learn to work with and trust each other, confidence will grow and, in time, the Assembly can become a model for the rest of the democratic world. Many people will look for signs that no external interests are capable of influencing the way we do our work. I belong to no such organisations and have to respect the rights of others who do, but they should record their membership of all organisations, including those that demand an oath of secrecy.
Finally, while it is not yet our responsibility, I hope that the Code of Conduct, with which I strongly agree, can be adapted to meet the needs of district councils. My Colleague MrONeill spoke about that. Only by adopting and enforcing the highest standards of public integrity, can we advance the cause of democracy.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I was out of my seat and had to move back to my natural home. I was not thinking of joining the Ulster Unionist Party. I had not intended to speak, but after listening to some of the comments I feel that it is worth noting a few points about the Code of Conduct.
As some Members have said, we do not wish the House to get the same reputation as the Dáil in the Irish Republic or the reputation that some elements of Westminster have obtained for the Mother of Parliaments. There have been allegations of sleaze and backhanders, and of people having their overdrafts cleared or ignored by the banks. It is important to ensure a Code of Conduct that will protect the Assembly and its Members from such allegations. The problem is that when one Member is tainted by allegations we all tend to get tainted.
The Code of Conduct is important. As my Colleague NigelDodds has said, the rules are extremely tight so as to cover every eventuality. If new eventualities arise, the Standing Orders Committee will be able to tighten the rules even further. The integrity of the Assembly is important.
There was a late intervention by SinnFéin. MrMolloy spent most of his time defending his behaviour and that of other members of his party at Friday’s meeting of the Standing Orders Committee. He said little about the report but, of course, that does not surprise me because SinnFéin members must have choked when they read the first page. They may not have got past the first page, or the first paragraph of the first page.
The section that is headed "Public duty" deals with the public duty of Members. We should not forget that opposite us is a party which includes people who have been convicted of bombing, murder, blackmail, kidnapping and extortion. What is the first public duty of a Member of the House? The code states
"Members have a duty to uphold the law".

Ms Brid Rodgers: Does the Member agree that the duty to uphold the law places an obligation on all Members to accept and abide by the legally binding determinations of a statutory body which has authority, placed on it by Parliament, to make such determinations? Does the Member agree that it is therefore the duty of Members to accept such determinations? I am referring, of course, to determinations by the Parades Commission.

Mr Paul Berry: It is comical to hear the Member for Upper Bann crying about hypocrisy. A few years ago on the Garvaghy Road when the parade was legally allowed to take place at Drumcree, this woman said, "This is terrible that this is happening in Portadown". The Government passed that parade as legal and she said that it was terrible.

Ms Jane Morrice: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. I think that you should question that point of order.

Lord Alderdice: That was not a point of order: the Member was intervening. From a point of order perspective he was wide of the subject that is under debate. I ask MrWilson to continue.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The intervention, of course, provoked the helpful intervention from my Colleague MrBerry. MrONeill had started to smile because he thought that I had been caught out by MsRodgers. I thank my Colleague for his helpful intervention. It does not surprise me that SinnFéin Members have little to say about the Code of Conduct. The very first duty must choke them. The next is a kind of double whammy:
"Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the electorate and the community as a whole".
The term "punishment beatings" flashes to mind. Members of SinnFéin would have difficulty with that particular aspect as well.
Mr Molloy spoke on his favourite topic of bashing the OrangeOrder. He wanted to have secret or semi-secret organisations included in the register. I wonder how many Members of IRA/Sinn Féin could declare their interest in secret organisations to the House. The police may have some interest in that.

Mr Edwin Poots: Bearing in mind that some Members have convictions for membership of the IRA, perhaps it would be in order for those Members to declare when they left the IRA or whether they are still members of it.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I thank my Colleague for that helpful intervention. When commenting on and defending the rights and the recognition of the Irish language, MrMolloy said that he was not an Irish language speaker. That is an amazing confession from a SinnFéin Member. Let me quote from the SinnFéin’s discussion booklet ‘Learning Irish’:
"Now every phrase you learn is a bullet in the freedom struggle."
We all know that. This next one is a cracker:
"You speak Irish or you speak English. Every minute you are speaking English you are contributing to the sum total of English culture on this island. There is no in-between."
DavidErvine has occasionally said that SinnFéin has come a long way, but I think that this is going the second mile. A Sinn Féin Member has confessed that all he can do every time he opens his mouth is contribute to the sum total of English culture on this island. I will leave that thought with him. We may find that there are some other expulsions from the Assembly before long.
I had not intended to speak in this debate but I was provoked by other Members’ contributions. The Code of Conduct represents an important step towards ensuring that the Assembly is not afflicted by the same sleaze and corruption which can be found in another Parliament on this island. I trust that Members will adhere to the Code and that it will be rigorously enforced to ensure that this House is not brought into disrepute.

Mr Sean Neeson: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I welcome the Code of Conduct and support the motion. In view of the fact that the guidelines which we will be adopting are very similar to those to be adopted by the Welsh Assembly, it is very appropriate that we are discussing this matter on StDavid’s Day.
The importance of this report is that it will safeguard Members’ interests. It is important that the highest standards of honesty and integrity are upheld by those elected to serve the community. Obviously there will be temptations, and politicians’ reputations will be at stake. It only takes the actions of one person, or of a small number of people, to tarnish the reputations of all politicians. That is why it is important that the requisite standards are set out in this document. We have only to look at the situation in the Republic of Ireland, where the reputations of a number of politicians have been tarnished by their activities in recent years. I was listening to the radio yesterday, and I heard that one of the biggest-selling records in the Republic at the moment is called ‘The Little Brown Envelope’, which takes a swipe at politicians. Is it purely coincidental that it is MrHaughey whose name is on the motion before the House today?
The public needs to be able to have confidence in politicians. We have been elected to serve the public interest, not self-interest, and the public is entitled to expect full accountability from its elected representatives. Last week, the ‘BelfastTelegraph’ published the lists of the interests of our representatives at Westminster. This made very useful reading. However, I feel that, as well as including details of any remunerative posts, lists of Members’ interests should include details of non-pecuniary interests. I agree with MrMolloy’s comments about the need to include in the register of interests membership of any organisation, be it the Masons, the Orange Order, the Knights of Saint Columbanus or the Knights of Malta. Membership of all these organisations should be included.
The main point of my intervention is to state clearly the Alliance Party’s support for this document and to express the hope that it will be accepted unanimously.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I support the motion and would like to commend the work that has already been done by the Committee. SammyWilson has already raised a very important point in relation to the extent to which Members of the Assembly and, indeed, the wider public in NorthernIreland can have confidence in this document. He pointed out that the Code states
"Members have a duty to uphold the law".
His comments about some of those who are inextricably linked to paramilitary groups are very serious. One could accuse Members from this side of the House of being churlish, of looking back at the past and talking of other people’s misdemeanours. However, rather fortuitously and amazingly, page1 of the Code of Conduct requiring Members to uphold the law reflects page1 of the Belfast Agreement — the Bible for the Members opposite, including SinnFéin.
Under the heading "Declaration of Support" on page1 another commitment is required:
"We reaffirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise."
As reflected in the document today, it is a requirement for Members of the Assembly to support fully the democratic process and the structures for law and order in the Province. Someone commented recently that that is also a requirement for those taking their seats on the 26councils across NorthernIreland. The Sinn Féin members and those fronting other paramilitary groups cross their fingers and make pledges about their support for the democratic process and the Crown forces, but they do not mean a word of it.
One has to question whether this document means much when people find it difficult to get past the first page.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. You are allowing Members to continue to make general remarks about people. I am a Belfast city councillor and a Member of the Assembly. I take seriously the pledges that I make. I am not sure if other Members do — even the Member who is speaking. If he is going to talk about "other paramilitary groups", I wish he would name them because I am fed up with his not naming them. Is he talking about me? If so, I would like to be able to answer the allegations that he makes.

Lord Alderdice: I have already made it clear that when Members speak in general terms they have a degree of cover in that their words cannot be taken as being unparliamentary. The more particular they are, the more they come to the edge. This may be frustrating for the Member, and I understand that. However, if Members are precise and particular, they are more likely to fall foul of privilege and be accused of using unparliamentary language.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I thought that I made it very clear. I will help MrHutchinson: I was referring to parties which continue to front fully-active paramilitary groups, which are inextricably linked to those groups, and which are clearly in breach of the commitment to use solely the democratic process to achieve their political goals. If MrHutchinson feels that his party is associated with groups such as I have described, that is a matter for him. He is the best judge of that.
In relation to the pledge of office, the issue of decommissioning is currently occupying minds. You will recall, MrInitial Presiding Officer, that several weeks ago the entire Unionist family represented in this Chamber endorsed a motion that stated
"any party inextricably linked with a paramilitary organisation retaining arms cannot give a total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic means of resolving differences on political issues or oppose the use or threat of force by others for such purposes."
For that reason, the issue of decommissioning, which we are currently facing, is of no great consequence. This is because the Unionist Members in the Chamber have declared that until the parties represented end their associations and affiliations with paramilitary groups that are fully active and operational in the Province, they cannot make the "Declaration of Support" as required by the Belfast Agreement or meet the requirements of page1 of the Code of Conduct.
Even if there were a change of heart on the part of the Republican movement, which is represented by SinnFéin, it would have to meet the requirement to stand down its forces, which are armed and fully prepared to return to war.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Unfortunately I was out of the Chamber, but I did hear that you had made an adjudication, if not necessarily a full ruling. It reminded me of a discussion at a previous session when, because only two members of SinnFéin were singled out, even though they were not mentioned by name, it was perceived that it was not specifically the whole group that was being challenged. Given that the Progressive Unionist Party has only two Members in this Chamber are you not out of order in some respects, MrInitial Presiding Officer, in not linking those two circumstances together?
Furthermore, could you clarify the issue of fronting paramilitary organisations. What does "fronting" mean? If you require assistance from MrCedricWilson, I am sure he would be more than keen to deliver it. I would also like you to consider a previous ruling on the issue of two SinnFéin Members being singled out but not named as potentially taking up ministerial posts. The two sets of circumstances are absolutely similar, and I fancy that MrCedricWilson is sailing close to the wind, as you suggested others were on that day.

Lord Alderdice: One needs to be a little careful in raising points of order about matters which were spoken of in the Chamber if one was not watching or listening to what was said. The Member did not mention the party of which you are a member. It was your colleague who raised that question, and therefore the matter which you raise does not apply in respect of a limited number of Members. That is absolutely clear.

Mr David Ervine: Further to that point of order. I must point out that there is a continuous cacophony of language used in this Chamber mostly, I would have to say, directed at SinnFéin. Others have drawn in the Progressive Unionist Party at various times and lumped it in with SinnFéin, the perception being that it is associated with paramilitary organisations. I challenge your suggestion that I do not have the right to comment even though I saw the proceedings in my office as they were played out.
Having said that, one needs to consider the fact that the perception from some Benches is that there is more than one party associated with paramilitary organisations. MrWilson did not say "group" or "party"; he said "parties". He therefore included the Progressive Unionist Party. I require, either on your part, MrInitial Presiding Officer, or in consultation with MrWilson, some definition of the word "fronting".

Lord Alderdice: You have raised a number of matters. One matter which I must raise is the question of challenging rulings. Secondly, as far as observing the proceedings from outside is concerned, that is justifiable. It is the convention in other places that Members who wish to participate in debates listen to the speeches coming before and after; in some places it is the convention that Members sit through the whole debate if they wish to intervene. While the latter is a very restrictive convention the former convention is not an entirely unreasonable one.
I will study Hansard, as I always do. If there are matters which need to be brought to the attention of the Assembly I will bring them, with due conscientiousness. However, I have to point out that there are times when Members themselves put matters on the record. They put matters into Hansard by raising them, responding to them, or objecting to them. On a number of occasions remarks would not have been on the record if they had not been responded to.
I will look at this particular matter, and I will study it. I have looked at it already in terms of the relevance of various speeches to what is being said, and I am persuaded that within certain bounds the speeches have been relevant. I will address the matter which the Member raises. However, I must say that at this point I am not convinced by the point of order that he raises, and has raised reasonably extensively.

Mr David Ervine: Further to that point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. I must defend myself. Nowhere in the Standing Orders is there mention of another place. We operate under the rules and procedures which we have created here. Continuously reminding Members of conventions in other places may be perfectly reasonable for those who understand the workings of other places, but it is a one-liner put-down to tell people who do not understand the workings of those other places that they should behave in a different way.

Lord Alderdice: The Member appears to have forgotten that, from the beginning, I have repeatedly referred to the use of ‘ErskineMay’ in situations where the Initial Standing Orders are not adequate. No Member has challenged that. ‘ErskineMay’ is available for all Members to read and when the Assembly’s Standing Orders are brought forward in full, I suspect there will still be a need to refer to it.
These are not obscure matters; they are not restricted to those who are Members in other places. They are available for Members to read, and there has been no objection to their being used. They have been used by a number of Members — not just myself.

Mr John Kelly: Further to that point of order, a Chathaoirligh — and this concerns organisations fronting paramilitary organisations. A couple of weeks ago DavidErvine challenged the Members of the DUP when he said that he had been in their homes, not as a PUP member but as a member of the UVF — an organisation which was and still is illegal. Not one of them challenged him; not one of them had the courage to stand up and deny what he was saying; not one of them ever said that he was wrong.
I would like you to give a ruling on organisations that front paramilitary organisations. How are such organisations to be defined? Where does it begin, and where does it end? Does it begin with the DUP and end with SinnFéin or the PUP?

Lord Alderdice: Let me make it clear, lest I did not refer specifically and sufficiently clearly to the point raised by MrErvine, that it is not for me to produce definitions of what Members are saying. If Members do not wish to spell something out — for whatever reason — that is a matter for them. It is not for me to challenge them to be more clear in their speech. I do have to say, however, that in referring back to one of the things that was said earlier, I am not sure that you have strengthened the point of order that the Member you referred to has raised — in fact, quite the opposite, I suspect.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. Is it not out of order for a Member who has not heard the remarks made to raise them as a point of order? He has, of course, the right to read Hansard and then draw your attention to the matter, but he cannot raise it on hearsay. Surely that ruling has to be adhered to.

Lord Alderdice: I do not believe that the Member raised the matter on hearsay; he advised the Chamber that he had observed this on the annunciator.

Mr Peter Robinson: No, he did not. He said the press. Look at Hansard.

Lord Alderdice: Order. On the first occasion he advised that he had heard it from the media, but on clarification he made it clear that he had seen it on the annunciator. I can amplify further. On the specific point that the Member raises, I believe that it is not unreasonable that when Members are participating in debate, they should be prepared, if at all possible, to wait for the person speaking before them and the person speaking after them. I am advised that there may be some Members who may not wish to do that, and the Committee on Standing Orders or other Committees of the Assembly may wish to address such matters. However, I do not think that it is an improper thing to expect; it is certainly something that is expected in other places.
Two Members want to raise points of orders — MrErvine and DrPaisley.

Mr David Ervine: Mr Ervine does not operate on the basis of hearsay. MrErvine saw it on the media — on the internal television system in his room.

A Member: Not the media.

Mr David Ervine: Of course it is the media.

Lord Alderdice: Order.

Mr David Ervine: Of course it is the media, with a semantic —

Lord Alderdice: Order. Is this a point of order?

Mr David Ervine: It is.

Lord Alderdice: If it is answering what another Member has raised, it is not a point of order. I have already ruled in that regard. If it is a point of order, I will take it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Surely, Sir, you need to look at that again. No annunciator is accepted in the House of Commons. A Member there cannot get up and say that while he was sitting in his room watching the debate, he heard a Member make such-and-such a comment and he wants to challenge it. If that Member was not at the meeting, the only way he can challenge a point is to check the Hansard Report. Even the media that records proceedings in the House of Commons is not accepted as a means of checking the contents of people’s speeches, as we found out when we raised certain matters in the House of Commons.

Lord Alderdice: I may find it necessary — and I have not done so up until now — to invoke the practice of taking points of order at a time of the Speaker’s choosing, otherwise the poor joint Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee will have expired before he has had the opportunity of winding up.
There is clearly a matter of dispute between Members here. At least it is better that the Member saw it on the screen rather than his relying on hearsay, which was the accusation previously made against him. He has made it clear that he saw it; he brought it here; the matter has been spoken of, and it has been ruled upon. I propose that we leave there and give the joint Chairman the opportunity of winding up the debate.

Mr David Ervine: I would like to have one final point of clarification.

Lord Alderdice: I cannot accept a point of clarification; I can accept points of order only.

Mr David Ervine: I will fit it in somewhere, MrInitial Presiding Officer, you can be assured of that.

Lord Alderdice: I have no doubt about your ingenuity and creativity in that regard, MrErvine.

Mr Denis Haughey: I am very glad to say that the reports of my expiring are decidedly premature. And my wife and children are delighted.
A number of matters have been raised, and I would like to refer to them in order.
First, I want to thank MrNigelDodds for his remarks. He points out that the report does not make any recommendation in regard to the appointment of a Commissioner. That may well be the case, but it was our view that this issue was best left to the Committee of Standards and Privileges, and they may recommend the appointment of a Commissioner.
Mr Dodds also raised the matter of when the Committee would be appointed. It should be appointed immediately devolution takes place, but it is a matter for the Assembly to decide whether it wishes to act prior to that. It would be difficult for a Committee of Standards and Privileges to act in a proper way unless a Clerk of Standards and a Commissioner were appointed at about the same time. There might be some difficulty about that, but it is something that we could, perhaps, look at again.
In addition, MrDodds raised the issue of the Committee’s having the power to tweak and adjust the rules as time goes on; he welcomed that, as do I.
I thank my Colleague MrEamonnONeill for his kind remarks.
Whether district council payments are registrable interests is an interesting question, one that I have not considered. The Committee on Standards and Privileges should look at that in detail. By and large the registration of interests relates to areas where a Member may derive a pecuniary or other valuable interest from his advocacy in the Assembly, and it is not clear whether or not that would be the case.

Mr Peter Robinson: As a general principle, if someone is elected to a public position, and, therefore, is in the public domain, the registration of interests is intended to overcome the difficulty of people not knowing Member’s interests, so I think it should be included, along with membership of the House of Commons, or any other public position.
12.00

Mr Denis Haughey: Mr Robinson is obviously a much more experienced parliamentarian than I am, and I defer to his judgement in this matter, but I still think that the matter is best left to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which can work out an exact protocol for it.
My Colleague MrEamonnONeill also raised the matter of the Clerk of Standards and the degree of power that he will have. The Clerk of Standards will be the chief administrator in this area: he will act as Clerk to the new Committee and maintain the Register. However, on the other hand, the Commissioner will be an independent appointee who will advise Members on standards and oversee the system of registration. Some of these matters will be presented in more detail when the Standing Orders become available, and I ask my Colleague MrONeill to wait until then.
Mr ONeill also raised the matter of an appeals procedure. I will require some time to look into this, but I will come back to him.
Mr ONeill, Mr Molloy and MrDallat raised, in turn, the question of membership of various Orders and organisations, whether open, semi-secret or oath-bound. There is a very particular NorthernIreland angle to this, and it will need to be looked at in some detail. The Westminster model does not require registration of the membership of such bodies. I am given to understand that the Welsh are considering a requirement for members of the New Welsh Assembly to register if they are members of the MasonicOrder. The Committee on Standards and Privileges will need to look very carefully at the NorthernIreland angle to this — it is not a matter that I am prepared to give an off-the-cuff judgement on at the moment.
Mr Sammy Wilson raised a number of issues, and I hope he will agree that none of them requires any specific or direct answer from me. [Laughter]
Mr Neeson questioned whether it was appropriate that MrHaughey should present this report. I have got into the habit of saying "no relation", and I will say it again.
Mr Cedric Wilson raised a number of issues in relation to the law. I can only point out that the obligation to abide by the law rests upon all citizens, and not just on Members of the Assembly — it does not derive from the GoodFriday Agreement or from any other political Act.
Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I do not know whether or not you will indulge me and permit me to reply in a few sentences to the issues raised that concern the Standing Orders Committee meeting last Friday. If you prefer that I do not proceed, I will not, but there are one or two issues which could give rise to misunderstanding, and I believe I should clarify them. I await your ruling.

Lord Alderdice: I am grateful to the Member and joint Chairman for putting it in that way. There may be misunderstandings with regard to the matter — there is plenty of evidence of that. However, it might be wiser for those matters to be addressed, if it is necessary to address them, when you present the report from the Committee on Standing Orders, which may not be too far away.

Mr Denis Haughey: I accept your ruling, MrInitial Presiding Officer.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Before this matter is concluded I want to raise the Initial Standing Orders which, I understand, are being delivered by the Secretary of State today to all of the parties in the House. I seek an assurance from one of the joint Chairmen that the Standing Orders Committee will have an opportunity at its next meeting to look at those Initial Standing Orders, as it did on a previous occasion, make recommendations and send them back to the Secretary of State. This is something that a Committee of the House should have an opportunity to do before the Secretary of State proceeds.

Mr Denis Haughey: As I understand it, the Secretary of State is making the draft Standing Orders available to all parties so that each party can respond in detail from its point of view. I can see no reason for the Standing Orders not going before the Committee on Standing Orders so that it too can have a look at them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
This Assembly agrees the resolution set out in Annex A to Paper No NIA1 "The Code of Conduct", together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members.
Resolved accordingly:
a. Approval is given to:
(i) The Code of Conduct contained in Assembly Paper NIA1;
(ii) the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members contained in Assembly Paper NIA1; and
(iii) The Committee on Standards and Privileges to make such minor amendments to the Guide to the Rules as appear to it to be justified by experience or necessarily reflect decisions of the Assembly; and to report such amended versions of the Guide to the Assembly.
Registration and Declaration of Members’ Interests
b. Every Member of the Assembly shall furnish to the Clerk of Standards such particulars of his or her registrable interests as shall be required, and shall notify to the Clerk of Standards any alterations which may occur therein, and the Clerk of Standards shall cause these particulars to be entered in a Register of Members’ Interests which shall be available for inspection by the public.
c. In any debate or proceedings of the Assembly or its Committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members, Ministers or servants of the Crown, he or she shall disclose any relevant interest or benefit, of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he or she may have had, may have or may be expecting to have. For these purposes:
(i) any interest disclosed in a copy of the Register of Members’ Interests shall be regarded as sufficient disclosure for the purpose of taking part in any division in the Assembly or in any of its Committees;
(ii) the term "proceeding" shall be deemed not to include the asking of a supplementary question.
d. It is the personal responsibility of each Member to have regard to his or her public position and the good name of the NorthernIreland Assembly in any work he or she undertakes or any interests he or she acquires. The scope of the requirement to register remunerated trades, professions or vocations includes any remunerated activity in the fields of public relations and political and Assembly advice and consultancy; in particular, in regard to the registration and declaring of clients, the services which require such registration and, where appropriate, declaration include, as well as any action connected with any proceedings in the Assembly or its Committees, the sponsoring of functions in Parliament Buildings, making representations to Ministers, civil servants and other Members, accompanying delegations to Ministers and the like.
e. No difficulty should arise in any proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees in which the Member has an opportunity to speak. Such proceedings, in addition to debates in the Assembly, include debates in Committees, the presentation of a public petition, and meetings of Committees at which evidence is heard. On all such occasions the Member will declare his or her interest at the beginning of his or her remarks. It will be a matter for the Member’s judgement, if the interest is already recorded in the Register, whether he or she simply draws attention to this or makes a rather fuller disclosure. Declarations of interest made in Committees shall be recorded in their Minutes of Proceedings.
f. Any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of the NorthernIreland Assembly shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Code of Conduct for Members; and a full copy of any such agreement, including the fees or benefits payable in bands of up to £1,000, £1,000-£5,000, £5,000-£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000, shall be deposited with the Clerk of Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members’ interests and made available for inspection by the public.
g. Any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of the NorthernIreland Assembly which confirms to the Code of Conduct for Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement in written form; and within three months of the date of this resolution a full copy of any such agreement, including the fees or benefits payable in bands of up to £1,000, £1,000-£5,000, £5,000-£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000, shall be deposited with the Clerk of Standards and registered in the Register of Members’ Interests and made available for inspection by the public.
Advocacy
h. It is inconsistent with the dignity of the Assembly, with the duty of a Member to his or her constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of the Assembly to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member’s complete independence and freedom of action in the NorthernIreland Assembly or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in the NorthernIreland Assembly; the duty of a Member being to his or her constituents and to NorthernIreland as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof and that, in particular, no Member of the Assembly shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received, is receiving, or expects to receive:
(i) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual; or
(ii) urge any other Member of the NorthernIreland Assembly, including Ministers, to do so,
by means of any speech, question, motion, introduction of a Bill or amendment to a motion or Bill.
i. A Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.

Assembly: Adjournment Debates

Lord Alderdice: I remind Members that applications for Adjournment debate should be in by noon on the Thursday preceding any following sitting. I also remind Members that requests to speak in Adjournment debates can be accepted only up to the start of the sitting, as distinct from requests to speak on other motions which are generally forthcoming throughout the sitting.
For the first time, the topic for the Adjournment debate — landfill in the Belfast area, particularly concerning problems at Mallusk — is included on the Order Paper. That is the reason for the earlier time for requesting applications. The topics for Adjournment debates will be included on future Order Papers.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Landfill (Belfast Area)

Mr David Ford: I have been caught unawares. I did not think that we would reach this point until after lunchtime. I will do my best, and I am sure that the DUP will keep me right.

Mr Nigel Dodds: May we have a ruling that this is one occasion on which it would be appropriate to have cries of "Rubbish" directed at the Initial Presiding Officer?

Mr David Ford: This debate has been requested by five of the six Members for South Antrim. Unfortunately, the DUP Member is the exception. It has been inspired by two factors. First, there is the nuisance that is suffered by many of our constituents in the Mallusk area; secondly, there is a desperate need for a regional strategy for disposal of waste, especially in the Greater Belfast area.
It is not just a Mallusk problem. Members from East Antrim will be well aware of the problems around Magheramourne and the threats to the environment in that area. At this stage Mallusk is clearly suffering most, and we shall outline the problems and suggest some solutions.
The saga began in 1988 at Cottonmount when part of Boyd’s quarry, which some Members may remember for motor trials, was suggested as a possible site for landfill. A detailed public inquiry was held at that stage, and planning permission was granted for a small part of the quarry for four or five years. Immediately after planning permission was granted, UKWaste became the operators.
Residents say that many problems, such as smell, birds and flies, litter blow and the inevitable traffic, started at that time. In fairness, UKWaste has made some efforts to reduce those problems, but it has failed to satisfy the concerns of residents.
Mallusk is not an area with a few residents, as it was some years ago. It is becoming more and more built up. Even in the past seven years, since the boundary review, Mallusk ward clearly has the highest population in Newtownabbey. It is now more than 50% over the average for Newtownabbey wards, and that was in advance of the most recent approval of planning permission for a major greenfield housing site in the area.
It is quite clear that the area is becoming less suitable for the operation of a landfill site though it may have been acceptable for a few years. I need to be careful here because of the sub judice rule, but I can say that there has been a new application for a massive extension that would carry four million tonnes of waste — a huge proportion of the total waste that is generated in NorthernIreland — for 20years.
In a judicial review, the courts have instructed the Department of the Environment to grant planning permission, although the Minister is appealing that decision. Without prejudice to that judicial review, it is my opinion that to grant permission for a single landfill site on such a scale at a time when we are about to approve a waste management strategy for NorthernIreland, would make such a strategy unviable if that were not predicated upon this site being the major dump.
A second major landfill site is about to come back into operation, and doubtless the Members for Belfast can tell us about that. It is my understanding that Belfast City Council intends to keep to itself the four or five years’ lifetime that it has on the foreshore.
The strategy document that we need to consider was produced in draft form in June last year. We do not know when the Department is going to produce the final version. The document makes it clear that NorthernIreland’s waste management is well behind European practice.
It sets out four principal objectives: the need to reduce the amount of waste generated in the first place — and we all know the problems of packaging and so on; the need to make best use of that waste which is generated; the need to encourage practices which minimise damage and nuisance; and the need to move waste handling up the hierarchy of waste management. That means that reduction of waste is to be preferred to reuse of waste, which is to be preferred to recycling of waste, which is to be preferred to recovery of waste, which is to be preferred to landfill.
The document says that there will be a planning policy statement from the Department which, at least in draft, is likely to favour co-ordinated plans and strategic facilities to avoid environmental impact and nuisance, moving waste up the hierarchy and regarding landfill as an option only when it is possible under the best practice guidelines. Targets are laid out within that, based on European targets which suggest that landfill should be cut to 75% of its 1995 levels by 2006 and to 35% of those levels by 2016. Those are optimistic targets and, perhaps, unrealistic. It will be interesting to see if they survive in the final version. We will require a massive initiative to get anywhere near the 75% target, never mind the 35% one.
We need that kind of strategy at regional level, but it will run into major problems if what the residents would describe as a "superdump" at Mallusk is allowed to proceed with a lifetime of 20years and taking virtually all the waste produced in GreaterBelfast. Such a landfill site, if it goes ahead on a traditional basis with mixed domestic and industrial waste of every kind, including the organic waste that leads to problems with methane and run-off, will bring about a major conflict in the area between the increasing population and the difficulties with the kind of waste which will be dumped.
I have some sympathy with UKWaste. The delays that it is suffering from are the same delays as those of us on councils that are using its dumps are suffering from and that the residents are suffering from. Antrim Council, of which I am a member, applied five-and-a-half years ago for planning permission for a relatively modest operation, a single landfill site to serve Antrim and possibly Ballymena. The Department has still not given us a response, just as it has failed to give a response to UKWaste.
If an operation on that scale has been held up by the need for a strategic plan, there is clearly a failure within the Department to sort out its business. Clearly, when the Assembly gets powers, and when a Minister accountable to the Assembly is responsible for the Department of the Environment as it is at present, the matter of regional strategic planning for waste management must be a major priority.
We must create a cultural change to promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery. At the moment, the strategy in the draft plan is extremely vague. It is totally unclear how this cultural change will come about. There are great problems, given the scale of operations in NorthernIreland, and even at regional level, with creating the critical mass necessary to promote recycling. Even with cross-border co-operation, that critical mass may be difficult to attain, in comparison with what happens in GreatBritain or on the European mainland.
It is clear that there are limits about what we can do here and that there is a great need for an initiative to be taken by Westminster and Brussels of which we can be a part. But there are some things that we can do, and there is going to be a major change, we need to start to consider those things seriously.
In particular, we have to be prepared to examine the issue of energy recovery by way of an energy-from-waste scheme. We need to deal with that which cannot be reused or recycled. I know there are major concerns — we all probably received mail from Friends of the Earth, Belfast, about the dangers of dioxins. I am also aware that energy-from-waste schemes are working well in other parts of Europe, including inner south London, so there are options which we need to examine to ascertain the facts and see what is possible.
In years to come Cottonmount may prove to be an acceptable site for the disposal of predominantly inert waste from an energy plant, but we need to have a strategic plan in place. We needed one three years ago, not just this year, and it must be a priority in fairness to all concerned, whether they be the councils that use the facility or the companies which run the facility, or the residents in Mallusk, and they are the most important of all.

Mr Norman Boyd: This issue has come before the House because of errors made by the Department of the Environment as a result of which many residents in the Mallusk area of Newtownabbey have had to endure a direct, negative impact.
In 1988 a local quarryman applied to turn a redundant part of his quarry complex at Mallusk into a landfill site for municipal and other wastes that would take 30,000tonnes of waste per annum. There were strong local objections to that including objections from Newtownabbey Borough Council. A public inquiry was called at which objectors gave evidence for their belief that a landfill site was incompatible with the surrounding residential, recreational and agricultural lands and waters. It was also pointed out that landfill was not regarded in Europe as the best method of waste disposal, and it was revealed at the public meeting that the proposed tonnage had been increased to 250,000tonnes per annum.
Under EC regulations an environmental impact assessment (EIA) should have been prepared. This latter point was acknowledged by the Department of the Environment representative, but he then admitted that the Department had failed to give notice to the applicant within the specified period and could not therefore request an EIA.
A range of consultants for the applicant and the so-called experts for the Department of the Environment gave evidence to the effect that with modern landfill techniques you could put a landfill site anywhere with none of the problems of smell, birds, litter and dirt associated with old-style landfills. The inquiry was told on a number of occasions that there was no intention to extend landfilling beyond the area of redundant quarry known as CottonmountQuarry and that the increased tonnage to be put into the site would mean that the full amenity of the area would be restored in four to five years. The inquiry found for the applicant and planning permission was granted.
In 1995 it was revealed that UKWaste had leased the CottonmountQuarry and intended taking the City of Belfast waste to Mallusk up to the year2000. It was also revealed that it had applied for planning permission for the remainder of the quarry complex, which would extend dumping by another 20years. UKWaste stated that within six months of starting operations, the residents would not know that the company was there. Dumping began at the end of February1996, and the impact on the area began to be felt.
All the fears of the residents who had opposed the planning application were now realised. There was the smell, the birds and the litter, both wind-blown and that falling off lorries, and the roads and footpaths became hazardous because of the dirt and volume and speed of traffic.
A number of meetings were held between the residents and UKWaste, but the problems were not resolved. Indeed, they have increased.
A public meeting was held on 6February this year. It was attended by 300residents. Their plight was heard in detail, and numerous public-health issues were raised. Many residents are unable to enjoy time in their garden because of the strong smell, which makes some people ill; the problems for asthma sufferers are increasing because of the poor quality of the air, but they are unable to open any windows (Sunday appears to be the day when the smell is worst); large numbers of birds generate a huge amount of droppings on the area and on nearby farmland; the rockets used to deter the birds are very loud and frighten pets; there is increased litter on the BerniceRoad and in surrounding areas; there is an unacceptable volume of traffic that has resulted in increased congestion, speeding and dirt.
There are several instances of mice and rats in the residential area, and there are numerous flies, which means people cannot open their windows. Food has to be covered while being eaten. As an example of the problem, 60 bluebottles were found in a kitchen in one week. These cases are not isolated and are clearly unacceptable.
The problem has been exacerbated by a recent High Court judgement issuing an order to compel the Department of the Environment to provide planning permission for the second phase of the landfill development operated by UKWaste Management Limited. This ruling would enable waste from Belfast and surrounding areas to be taken to Cottonmount for the next 20years.
In 1997 the residents wrote to the Planning Service to object to phase two as so many problems were still unresolved from phase one. The Planning Service’s opinion failed to take account of EC legislation, which requires areas of separation between landfills and residential and recreational areas. The Planning Service’s opinion also gives a competitive advantage by placing 50% of all waste management in NorthernIreland in one company.
In February1998 Newtownabbey Borough Council commissioned an independent survey of odour problems in the area of Baird’sBrae landfill site at Mallusk Road, Newtownabbey. The report stated that the site is situated in an area of mixed development with light industrial, commercial and extensive residential developments all located within 200metres of the site boundary.
The summary of the report states that odour levels at Baird’sBrae were encountered at offensive levels on all four site visits and that these were due mainly to operational practice, principally to a combination of a large active area and landfill gas venting into the atmosphere. The current position is that LordDubs, Minister for the Environment, has lodged an appeal against the recent court ruling.
Waste management practice in NorthernIreland is lagging behind some other parts of Europe. There is an obligation on the Government to ensure that waste management here develops closely in line with the rest of the United Kingdom and European directives. One of those objectives is to reduce considerably the volume of municipal waste, and therefore phasetwo at Mallusk would be in direct contravention of European Community directives.
It is clear, therefore, that alternatives to landfill in NorthernIreland must be implemented as a waste strategy, including the reuse of waste and increased recycling. The question of waste management schemes must be studied in detail and should be left to locally elected representatives in the Assembly to formulate and implement.
There must be no further development of landfill sites at Mallusk or elsewhere in NorthernIreland, and any such proposals must be rejected. Resolutions to the current problems must be speedily achieved. High standards of public life and protection of the environment are key responsibilities of elected representatives and fundamental requirements of responsible government.

Mr Jim Wilson: Belfast City, Larne, North Down, Ards, Carrickfergus, Antrim and Newtownabbey dump their rubbish at Baird’s Brae in Mallusk. I hope that these local government districts have other plans for the future because the residents of Mallusk are not planning to be everybody’s backyard indefinitely. "Not in my backyard, but it is OK in yours" has been the solution offered by Northern Ireland administrators for far too long.
Perhaps I should not admit being able to remember the pit at the back of my grandfather’s terrace house. Rubbish was shovelled out of it and transported by tractor and trailer to a nearby tip head or hole in the ground— a haven for gulls, rats and scavenging dogs. That was in the late ’40s. Fiftyyears later, approaching a new millennium, the pit has become a wheelie bin, the tractor has become a labour-saving bin lorry and the hole in the ground is still a hole in the ground with a liner, and we call it land reclamation.
This debate is timely and necessary. It is timely because it will point up the need to look objectively and, indeed, subjectively at the real issues associated with landfill, and it is necessary because NorthernIreland is fast approaching a crossroads and will have to confront head-on what is to happen to its rubbish and waste in the years to come.
We all acknowledge that landfill is an emotive subject and that we would not like to live near such a site. Yet, as a community, we generate waste — onetonne of it per household each year. It is collected from outside our houses, taken to a place that is well away from where most of us live and then forgotten about.
It is not as simple as that for some 300residents in Mallusk who are directly affected by a landfill site. These residents live near a landfill site, a facility that, quite understandably, causes them to be angry. They are opposed to the operation; they complain about what it does to their area; and they are demanding action. And why not? It is right that this debate should reflect their feelings, and it is also right that we, as elected representatives, should look at the wider picture: what would happen to the 350,000 to 400,000tonnes of waste from seven district council areas that is deposited annually if there were not a Baird’sBrae landfill site?
I want to be as fair and objective as possible. First, the residents have raised objections to what could be termed as a spin-off from the UKWaste’s management site. They say that there is a smell — and there is — and that birds, flies, rodents and litter are major problems.
UK Waste, for its part, insists that it is the best and most professionally managed landfill site in NorthernIreland, if not on the entire island of Ireland. The company, regarded nationally as an industry leader, has invested £0.25million in installing a range of measures designed to reduce the nuisance caused to the local community. These measures have operating running costs of £60,000per year.
The company states that 70nozzles are used to spray natural oils on to the site to suppress the smell. This system, which is unique in NorthernIreland, works 24hours a day, 365days per year, and the company claims that it also serves to eliminate ash and other fine particles from the air.
UKWaste operates the largest gas system in the Province, burning off 2,000cubic metres of gas per hour. Plans are in place to use this gas to generate electricity — enough power to meet the needs of a large village or a small town. Green energy from waste has certain attractions: it reduces dependence on coal; cuts levels of methane; and minimises the damaging greenhouse effect. An ambitious plan such as this should be welcomed.
The condition of the approach road to the landfill site is a major issue. UKWaste says that mechanical sweepers sweep the main road daily, while on the site a wheel-wash system cleans every vehicle as it leaves. Still the road is a mess. It is not designed for the volume of heavy vehicles which travel to and from the dump.
At the perimeter of the landfill site there is a 30-foot litter fence. The fence is backed up by mobile litter screens which are placed beside a refuse vehicle while it is tipping. An enclosed storm area, built at a cost of £50,000, is used in inclement weather. Yet the residents say that there is a litter problem in the district.
A range of measures is used to counter nuisance from birds. They minimise any inconvenience to residents while, at the same time, serve as a deterrent to birds. The residents give a graphic description about living under the flight paths of these birds. I will not go into the detail.
What about rats and other vermin? According to the company and the environmental health body Northern Group Systems, which acts for Newtownabbey, Larne and Ballymena councils, there is no evidence of infestation above the level associated with a semi-rural location. The residents strongly disagree.
Stringent controls are also in place to deal with flies. The Department of Agriculture audited the landfill site and said that there was no fly problem on the site. Again the residents strongly disagree.
UK Waste insists that it is doing all that it can to address the concerns of the local residents. Many of their comments have been taken on board, and the company was instrumental in setting up a liaison group as a means of creating two-way dialogue.
In short, it tries to adopt the good-neighbour approach. The residents do not want a major landfill site operator to be their neighbour. What about the future? The landfill will reach the end of its useful life in 14months or so. One third of the area has been restored to a greenfield site and another third will be completed by the end of the year.
Four years ago the firm applied to extend its operations, phasetwo at Boyd’s quarry, and recently it applied successfully for a judicial review in the High Court to get the Department of the Environment to make a decision. The Department is now appealing this decision in the Court of Appeal, so further delay is inevitable. Time, of course, is of the essence.
The company needs to know what is going to happen from the points of view of both investment and forward planning. We are running out of landfill, and that presents an enormous headache for the seven councils which currently use UKWaste facilities. But it is not just a problem for councils. About 150companies, which between them employ 20,000people, depend on UKWaste to handle their dry, commercial, non-hazardous waste. They too are looking on with a degree of uncertainty and trepidation. If they cannot dispose of their waste material, what impact will it have on their operations? It is easy to stand here and criticise, but UKWaste performs a vital function without which there would be total chaos.
Properly managed landfill is needed, even though it is not the ideal solution. The company acknowledges the difficulties and would much prefer to see an integrated solution to our refuse problem. It is also worth noting the extent to which UKWaste operations have benefited the wide range of schemes in the region.
Over the past two years UKWaste has facilitated over £650,000 for environmental programmes through the landfill tax credit scheme. Fourhundredthousand pounds of this has been earmarked for projects in the Newtownabbey area, many of which are in the immediate vicinity of the site.
UK Waste is a reputable company — a good corporate citizen doing a difficult job as best it can. It knows that there are problems and no easy answers. It says itself that it does not produce waste — it manages the community’s waste. It is our problem and a problem that will not be solved by dumping our rubbish in a hole in the ground some place not near our homes. The residents of Mallusk do not want a dump near their homes.

Mr Duncan Dalton: We are here today to discuss an issue which is of concern not only to my constituents in Mallusk but to the wider community in Belfast and throughout NorthernIreland. MrBoyd has outlined a good deal of the background in relation to this site, but I will go over some of it again.
The site was created in 1988 when DerekBoyd, a local quarry man, applied to turn a redundant part of his quarry into a landfill site. The original estimate was that the site would contain 30,000tonnes of waste. A public inquiry was called, and during the inquiry it was discovered that 250,000tonnes of waste would be put into the site per annum — a lot more than the 30,000tonnes originally envisaged.
As a consequence of that, an environmental impact assessment should have been carried out, but because of the Department of the Environment’s failure to ask the applicant to fulfil such an obligation within the requisite time period, no impact assessment was ever conducted. The public inquiry heard from the local residents; it heard from various experts; it heard from people who said that the landfill site would not be a nuisance and would not cause any major concern to the local residents; and it also heard from people who said that it would all be finished within four or five years.
In 1995 the site was leased from JamesBoyd&Sons by UKWaste, which has leased the site until the year2000. It started running it in February1996, and since then my constituents and the people who live in and around the site in Mallusk have had to suffer the smell that emanates constantly from this dump, a smell that is so unpleasant that during the summer months the children do not want to play in their back gardens. People do not want to go outside, and they cannot hold barbecues, as many of us like to do, during the summer months. That is an unacceptable burden on the residents, and it is just the tip of the iceberg.
Thousands of birds regularly scavenge on the site and then fly across the residential areas leaving waste deposits. Local residents have to endure bird waste covering houses, cars and clothes. Some residents recently complained that they had seen rats around their homes and in the area. There seems to be a development of rats and mice about the site, and that is a major public health issue.
UK Waste recently applied to extend the site in what it calls phase II of the operation to develop a larger site that will have a capacity of more than 300,000tonnes. It will be used for approximately 20 to 25years. There has been no public inquiry in relation to that site because the Department relied on the fact that there had been a public inquiry into phaseI — a smaller site. As that public inquiry had determined that that had been a suitable area for landfill, the Department decided that there would be no problem over allowing a further site there. The Department duly issued a notice of opinion to the applicants — UKWaste — stating that full planning permission would be granted for the application for phaseII.
Since that notice was issued, the Department has started to develop, as my Colleague MrFord has said, a waste management strategy for Northern Ireland. It had realised that if it sited at Mallusk an enormous landfill with the capacity to take nearly one third of the Province’s entire waste, it would skew any possible consideration of a properly developed waste management strategy for the entire Province. Fortunately, it told the company that the application would not be approved at that stage, and it has been withholding a decision.
Colleagues have said that the company has successfully applied for judicial review to get the Department to make a decision. The Department has now gone to the Court of Appeal. If it were not sub judice I could go into some of the issues relating to the HighCourt judgement. I question the judgement of some of the lawyers in deciding to appeal. The Department has an opportunity to make a decision now; it does not need to appeal.

Mr Peter Weir: Is the Member aware that this is part of a wider problem of delayed decisions by the Department of the Environment? In my constituency, there is the possibility of a sewerage works in either north Down or Ards. The report recommending the site for the works was submitted to the Department before Christmas, but there have been many delays in announcing the site, and the Department seems to be dragging its feet over similar decisions.

Mr Duncan Dalton: I cannot add to my Colleague’s comments about that site. The Department may be dragging its feet, but perhaps it has a good reason. I suspect that other Members share my view that the development of a proper waste management strategy for NorthernIreland should not be decided by LordDubs, by any other Minister from across the water, or by civil servants in the Department of the Environment. It will affect the development of this Province for the next 20 to 25years or more, and it should be decided by Assembly Members and Ministers. We were elected by local people and are accountable to them and not to people in middle England.
At the earliest opportunity, the Assembly should take upon itself the role of determining a future strategy for waste management. As soon as we have ministerial responsibility, the statutory committee on the environment should urgently look at this issue and work with the Department to develop a proper waste management strategy for the entire Province. Only after such a strategy has been developed can the relevant Minister make a decision on the Baird’sBrae site.
If we are going to develop a proper strategy for NorthernIreland, we will have to take account of some of the issues raised by MrFord. We produce an enormous quantity of rubbish from our houses every year, so it is important that we try to deal with that rubbish, and not just bury it in a hole in the ground.
We should seriously consider the use of recycling facilities and the possibility of creating facilities that could generate electricity from this waste. Rubbish is not just something that we should bury in a hole in the ground — it is an asset that can be used for the benefit of the whole community. If we just bury it, we are storing up problems for future generations and wasting a valuable asset.
I would also suggest that Belfast City Council, as it considers the development of the waste management strategy for the Belfast area, should consider how the waste generated in the GreaterBelfast area — 150,000 to 200,000tonnes of waste — affects other areas. Belfast City Council has the opportunity to lead the way in this field and to assist the rest of us in the development of a waste management strategy for the Province as a whole.
I hope that the development of the Cottonmount site does not go ahead because Mallusk is a residential area. It may not have been when the site was first developed, but it is an area of considerable population growth now. There are 1,000houses to be built in that area in the near future. It is unreasonable to expect so many people to live so close to a landfill site, and I hope that this development does not go ahead.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is worthy of note that five of the six Members for South Antrim put their names down to speak in this debate, and that they attended a public meeting on this subject in Mallusk a couple of weeks ago.

Mr Wilson Clyde: I have been accused of not putting my name to this motion. I was not approached about this matter. As MrFord and MrMcClelland know, I am opposed to landfill sites and have given more support to residents of the areas around landfill sites than anyone. It is odd that neither MrMcClelland nor MrFord has attended any meetings of the Ladyhill Residents’ Association about the development of a landfill site there.

Mr David Ford: Could MrMcClelland confirm that I left a note about this debate in his pigeon-hole and those of all the other Members for SouthAntrim last week?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Yes, I can confirm that.
I was going to say before MrClyde intervened that I was sure that, given his previous interest in matters relating to waste management on Antrim Borough Council, MrClyde would be afforded the opportunity to take part in this debate. Because of his interruption I was not able to make that point, but I have no doubt that MrClyde will want to contribute to this debate, given his past interest in the matter.
I would like to begin by thanking MrFord. His comments on the waste-management strategy consultation document were very helpful and incisive. I would like also to thank MrBoyd, who took us so eloquently through the chronological events relating to the landfill site at Mallusk, and MrJWilson, who spent some time on the problems relating to the site at Cottonmount and who, like myself, believes this to be a wider problem, affecting not just the people in the Cottonmount area.
I also agree with much of what MrDalton said. He also stated that this was not just a problem for the south Antrim and Greater Belfast areas — it is a problem for the entire community. Quite rightly, he said that, the sooner the Assembly assumes responsibility for these matters, the sooner we will be able to resolve these problems.
The word "crisis" has been overused in our debates, but I believe that we do face a crisis in waste management. There is a major problem with waste disposal throughout NorthernIreland, and particularly in the south Antrim/Greater Belfast area. We are still waiting for the Government’s final statement on a waste-management strategy.
The Department of the Environment has quite rightly attracted very strong criticism for its failure to deal with the problem and to implement the waste-management strategy following consultation, which will facilitate, among other things, planning decisions on landfill sites.
While everyone agrees that a strategy is required sooner rather than later, the reality is that decisions must be made. Any delay in agreeing this document will create further problems. Urgent action is required.
The responsible Department has always responded to planning applications in the past by saying
"The priority is not to predetermine the balance, nature and number of waste disposal methods and facilities in advance of the waste management strategy".
That is a cop-out. It fails to respond to the growing needs of the community in dealing with a very serious environmental problem.
Because of this ongoing crisis the Department of the Environment has sometimes turned policy on its head. With planning logjams and other problems it has been forced to facilitate Belfast City Council. It was originally required to close the DarganRoad foreshore site by the year2000. Because of the impending crisis the Department has, at a stroke, given Belfast City Council a five-year extension to the site. Consequently there will be a continuing environmental impact on a partially contained foreshore site. This site is the source of many problems as it is not fully contained and leaks into BelfastLough. It has been criticised by environmental observers over the years.
Therefore the Department of the Environment, in recognising the crisis faced by Belfast and Belfast alone, is applying double standards. It tells other councils that planning must await a regional strategy document, yet it has given Belfast City Council permission to extend a low-grade, high-impact site for another fiveyears. It makes a nonsense —

Lord Alderdice: The Member is obviously wishing to make an intervention. Two Members cannot be on their feet at one time.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am sorry. I did not realise that I was being asked to give way. Go ahead.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I note with great concern the areas mentioned, but I wonder if Members have considered that the Government and its legislators have a greater role in this area than anyone else. The consensus in Europe is to make the polluter pay — those who originally produce the rubbish. I am thinking in particular of those who produce the non-biodegradable polystyrene trays and the cubic tonnage of non-degradable plastic. Has any Department yet made an effort to encourage the manufacturers to recycle? There was nothing wrong with the old idea that those who returned the bottles were rewarded.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I thank the Member for his comments. The concept of the polluter paying is in the document.
I was making the point that the Department of the Environment has employed double standards in allowing Belfast City Council to extend the DarganRoad site. I, as other Members have done, welcome the draft consultant document on a waste-management strategy. It contains a commitment to sustainable development, to the polluter paying, and it combines environmental, economic and social objectives. I also welcome its commitment to the effective protection of the environment and the prudent use of natural resources.
I understand that there are about seven and a half years of remaining landfill capacity for the whole of NorthernIreland. It is costly to the ratepayer. Transporting waste is costly and it attracts considerable public opposition due to the environmental problems.
I am aware, as are other Members, of the problems of pollution, the environmental problems and, as MrBoyd and others have rightly pointed out, the tremendous problems caused to the ratepayers of Newtownabbey. I am also aware that even if we have a new Waste To Energy plant in Belfast and ambitious new recycling plans, we will still need landfill sites as an outlet for industrial waste and ash residue.
The reality is that the pace of development by the Department of the Environment in the waste-management sector did not keep pace with the requirements of the community. We have a crisis on our hands which is already presenting itself in the environmental impact in south Antrim and Greater Belfast and will do so in the other areas.
As other Members have said, this region requires a sound waste-management strategy. It is crucial to our social, economic and environmental well-being. The problems which face Newtownabbey and Greater Belfast are there because of the failures of Government Departments. We need this Assembly to start to make decisions and, if I may paraphrase another Member, this problem is not going to go away, you know.

Lord Alderdice: MrClyde, another Member for South Antrim, whom you mentioned in your comments, and a number of other Members wanted to speak in this debate. However, the requests were made after the sitting had commenced. That is why it has not been possible for MrClyde and other Members to take part. I think it is only fair, from his point of view, that I put the record straight.
Adjourned at 12.52 pm.